Recommended Posts

techbeck 4,809

A landmark document created at the request of NATO has proposed a set of rules for how international cyberwarfare should be conducted. Written by 20 experts in conjunction with the International Committee of the Red Cross and the US Cyber Command, the Tallinn Manual on the International Law Applicable to Cyber Warfare analyzes the rules of conventional war and applies them to state-sponsored cyberattacks.

Unsurprisingly, the manual advises that attacks must avoid targets such as hospitals, dams, and nuclear power stations in order to minimize civilian casualties, but also makes some bold statements regarding retaliatory conduct. According to the manual's authors, it's acceptable to retaliate against cyberattacks with traditional weapons when a state can prove the attack lead to death or severe property damage. It also says that hackers who perpetrate attacks are legitimate targets for a counterstrike.

"There's plenty of law that applies to cyberspace."

Project leader Professor Michael Schmitt, the Chairman of the International Law Department at the United States Naval War College, tells The Guardian that countries "can only use force when you reach the level of armed conflict," explaining that in most cases the appropriate response to a cyberattack would be digital retaliation. "Everyone talks about cyberspace as though it's the wild west," says Schmitt, "we discovered that there's plenty of law that applies to cyberspace."

Anon are ok in my eyes, its the other wannabes who claim to be Anon when they do stupid sh** that give them a bad name

I hope that if they do go after anon, they will counterstrike the counterstrikers and blow them all up. But on a more serious note, I do agree with Detection. Anon is doing what they do for a reason, and the more churches they bash and religious related things they poke and bring down I am all for it.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

theyarecomingforyou 9,089

Unsurprisingly, the manual advises that attacks must avoid targets such as hospitals, dams, and nuclear power stations in order to minimize civilian casualties

Well, that's a pretty massive loophole. It means countries will simply have their hackers work in the basements of hospitals and nuclear power plants.

The most interesting consequence of legitimising the killing of those engaging in cyber warfare is that it would open the way for countries like Pakistan to legally launch attacks against the US mainland to take out drone pilots.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Phouchg 2,050

Phouchg 2,050

Did I misunderstand or the scope of this thing is only international and state-sponsored malware like Stuxnet and Flame. Because no matter what, one country cannot just authorize to kill a citizen of another country. Except the "world police", but they'd find a way even without petty documents.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Kimleng 8

This is crazy, killing people for pushing buttons on a keyboard. And most of the comments seem to advocate this thinking. I am glad I was born when I was, hate to see what this world will turn into.

It's as simple as the pull of a trigger. Very little force required to exert maximum amount of damage. A trigger may kill a person, a button press may wipe out an entire city. That button push one day may ruin a water supply, cut power, release gas, etc simply because our systems are now so automated, you no longer have to physically be present to wreak havoc. So, yes, it may be justified in some cases to simply wipe out the button pusher.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

dwLostCat 977

This is crazy, killing people for pushing buttons on a keyboard. And most of the comments seem to advocate this thinking. I am glad I was born when I was, hate to see what this world will turn into.

What if they hack into our military systems, or get hundreds of people killed? Those would be an act of war or terrorism by any other definition, but because they're only hackers it's alright with you?

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

+exotoxic 410

+exotoxic 410

What if they hack into our military systems, or get hundreds of people killed? Those would be an act of war or terrorism by any other definition, but because they're only hackers it's alright with you?

But it works both ways, any country that attacks any other country should be prepared for the consequences.

Didn't the US or Israel make the worm that blew up a bunch of stuff in Iran?? Then when Iran threatens to retaliate the media makes them look like the bad guys :/

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

S7R1K3R 9

What if they hack into our military systems, or get hundreds of people killed? Those would be an act of war or terrorism by any other definition, but because they're only hackers it's alright with you?

Yea I see what you are trying to get at, but if it's that easy to hack into a military system and get hundreds of people killed wouldn't the onus be on the government to keep it secure? If you didn't lock your gun and let's say your kid fires it at someone, aren't you going to get charged? What right does the government have in deciding that they are going to kill someone just because they left a port open or whatnot. And has there ever been even one case of a hacker causing the deaths of hundreds? If not then why was this law created? Are we trying to solve a problem that never happened or are we being sheep?

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

dwLostCat 977

dwLostCat 977

Yea I see what you are trying to get at, but if it's that easy to hack into a military system and get hundreds of people killed wouldn't the onus be on the government to keep it secure? If you didn't lock your gun and let's say your kid fires it at someone, aren't you going to get charged? What right does the government have in deciding that they are going to kill someone just because they left a port open or whatnot. And has there ever been even one case of a hacker causing the deaths of hundreds? If not then why was this law created? Are we trying to solve a problem that never happened or are we being sheep?

You must really like drones if you're perfectly ok with killing hundreds of people remotely just because they gave themselves permission to do it.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

techbeck 4,809

Yea I see what you are trying to get at, but if it's that easy to hack into a military system

Doesnt have to be a military system. They could shutdown an airport, hospital..

What right does the government have in deciding that they are going to kill someone just because they left a port open or whatnot.

What right does the police have to arrest a criminal for breaking in to someones house because they left the door unlocked? It just doesnt matter. That criminal had no right to be there and those hackers have no business being where they are.

And has there ever been even one case of a hacker causing the deaths of hundreds? If not then why was this law created? Are we trying to solve a problem that never happened or are we being sheep?

These kind of hacker attacks are becoming more and more common. Sensitive data being stolen has happened several times and can lead to people being killed. Just going to get worse if action isnt taken and this is a bold statement

How would they be supposed to kill them? Everybody knows hackers use aimbots.

They have tracked down and caught them before They are not untraceable.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

S7R1K3R 9

Doesnt have to be a military system. They could shutdown an airport, hospital..

What right does the police have to arrest a criminal for breaking in to someones house because they left the door unlocked? It just doesnt matter. That criminal had no right to be there and those hackers have no business being where they are.

These kind of hacker attacks are becoming more and more common. Sensitive data being stolen has happened several times and can lead to people being killed. Just going to get worse if action isnt taken and this is a bold statement

They have tracked down and caught them before They are not untraceable.

I am all for arresting and giving people a trial. But to go ahead and kill someone for something like this is ridiculous. What does it matter anyway right? The world is overpopulated anyway. Even in your own example of someone breaking into someones house, do we kill the criminals? Have we ever in modern society? But in your view pressing a few keys equals death. Are we going to start killing people who torrent stuff too? Where does it end? Don't people ever question anything anymore?

Share on other sites

techbeck 4,809

I was voicing my opinion towards anonymous and you know, being on topic. You are off topic. And you are commenting on me making stupid comments? huh

Go away. I have no more time for you.

I am all for arresting and giving people a trial. But to go ahead and kill someone for something like this is ridiculous. What does it matter anyway right? The world is overpopulated anyway.

Well, depends on the situation I guess. Little info on this at the moment to. I imagine tho that if it was a single individual, then they will get a fair trial. However, if it was an cyber attack from a person working for a terrorist group, then take them down.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

dead.cell 1,722

dead.cell 1,722

Say what you like about Anonymous, but the day we have military personnel or otherwise killing American citizens will be the day everything goes to hell. I realize you're probably joking, but I'm pretty dead serious on this.

Link to post

Share on other sites

HawkMan 5,077

Anon are ok in my eyes, its the other wannabes who claim to be Anon when they do stupid sh** that give them a bad name

You don't know what anon is then.

Anon isn't a group, anon is everyone. though that isn't true but it's what the anon "fanboys" like to believe. the leadership merely use proxies and other accounts, to push the causes they want done, until they reach critical mass. All the attacks fronted by those not in this secret leadeship group, doesn't get this behind the scenes push and never take off unless the leadership likes it. either way, every attack done by anyone claiming to be anon is done by anon. though maybe not by the secret supposedly non existing leadership.

in any case all of Anons attacks are with a few very small exceptions done by individuals who only say they are anon for that one attack are simple script kiddie DDOS attacks, who does nothing to hurt the people they intend, only the users.